Bill Ward wrote:
>
>> Thank you for making my point. The private sector is not coercive,
> so those wishing to force others to submit to their will must
> involve the public sector, or become part of the criminal sector.
Yes, I see what you are driving at: the public sector retains some of
the power to coerce industry. Yet it must still persuade the public.
However, you should consider that the private sector must be persuasive
only in those areas where it is forbidden by the public sector from
being coercive.
I should restate that you are still completely wrong in this sense: The
private sector is inherently coercive and is held in check by the public
sector. The public sector is inherently persuasive, and only as a
result of successful persuasion does it have the power to coerce.
> >The public sector is persuasive and must be, as is
> >clearly illustrated by any political discussion.
>> Try refusing to pay taxes and see just how "persuasive" the public
> sector is. Continue, and you will face the use of force against
> you. It is coercive.
As I said, it is inherently persuasive, and can coerce only as the
result of successful persuasion.
>> >> Collectivism of any denomination requires force.
>> >And you claim that the workplace - surely the most private of private
> >sectors - is not coercive?
>> Yes, I do. In the private sector, if I don't like one job, I am
> free to quit and get another.
You seem to be confusing haiving the Russion Choice with the need to be
persuaded. Only freedom from debt and a sufficient level of resources
makes persuasion necessary, but that is true in all dealings with
business. When your resources are restricted industry becomes
increasingly coercive. It is one reason industry uses the public sector
to adopt national policy which allows the industry to coerce. It is the
nature of the private sector to coerce, and it tends to follow its
nature.
> If I want to sell something, I need
> only find a willing buyer. If force is required, it is a sure sign
> that the public or criminal sector is involved.
Quite the contrary: if the public sector does not prevent you from
monopolizing you coerce people to buy your product at your price. Crime
is only crime if it is illegal, and the public sector determines
legality.
>> >And you claim that the election process,
> >surely the most public of public sectors, is not persuasive? Surely
> >you're joking.
>> No, the election process is the method of choosing those who are
> allowed to exercize the power of coercion assigned to the public
> sector. Our Constitution does not guarantee we get good government,
> but it does ensure we get the government we deserve.
>
> >> The
> >> private sector cannot use force - that is reserved for the public
> >> and criminal sectors.
>
>> You are using a strange new meaning of "coerce". If an employer is
> required by the public sector to retain an employee against the
> employer's wishes, that is coercion.
I think in this case coercion may apply to both, but there is nothing
but the ordinary definition used by me. Certainly industry may be
coerced, in fact only when there is a free market and competition for
products does the persuasive nature of public input affect industry.
But clearly layoffs are dictated to employees, and you can't escape the
unwillingness of many employees to leave. The more so in a tight job
market. You may note that many employees are physically ushered off the
premises, and that during the massive layoffs in the early nineties
security became a major issue. Security is not a device of persuasion.
> If an employee is required to
> stay working at a job against his wishes, that is coercion
> (slavery).
One example.
> When both employer and employee are satisfied, coercion
> is not required.
Of course, but that sidesteps the issue.
> Coercion is physical force.
Forced starvation and homelessness, then, are physical force. Forced
use of a product, then, is physical force.
> Economics is
> persuasion.
Economics employs both persuasion and coercion.
>> <snip>
>> >> Please call me an idiot too -- coming from the likes of you I
> >> consider it a high compliment.
>> >Then I'm afraid you must consider yourself complimented, for in fact
> >your arguments are...unconvincing.
>> Thank you, I am indeed honored.
>
M